Talk:List of Doctor Who episodes (2005–present)/Archive 6

Children in need confirmed
http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/proginfo/tv/wk46/fri.shtml#fri_cin

Its confirmed but no title has been given should it be mentioned on the table of information?--Wiggstar69 07:09, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It already is mentioned on the page.--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 07:12, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I've made a better explanation on the page with what it is called. --VitasV 01:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Can we please not add Time Crash before Voyage of the Damned because all we know if this might be a spoof episode and plus it wouldn't take place before Voyage of the Damned (duh!). Until more news about it will come, refraim from editing the subject until then. Even though it will be aired before Voyage of the Damned, I beleive Russell would be thinking about it taking place somewhere after Voyage of the Damned. --VitasV 06:54, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It's just been added at the end of a section. Calm down!--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 07:05, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Vitas, your text has been removed again. Please do not restore it as it duplicates existing copy earlier in the section. There is no need to repeat the information. Thanks. --Ckatz chat spy  08:04, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Thats alright but don't think about placing it before Voyage of the Damned again. --VitasV 08:22, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Why not click on this link?--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 08:27, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I think this one is appropriate as well, given Vitas' general attitude. (BTW, Vitas, I never placed it there. Please don't make incorrect, unwarranted accusations as it only reflects poorly on you.) --Ckatz chat spy  08:41, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Would it be considered as officail as the 2005 children in need special? I mean its done by the same production team with an official name and date already.--Wiggstar69 08:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * We won't know until we've watched it, will we? let's just be patient a little while longer... - NP Chilla 08:45, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree that it shouldn't be in the list until we know if it's official or not, but if it is official then it should go between Last of the Time Lords and Voyage of the Damned, as that is broadcast order. It would go somewhere different in terms of chronology - but that's a different article.  Stuart  DD  contributions 09:09, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I get the not before VOTD thing but it's got to go somewhere!Lollypop2 10:50, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * IT'S ON THE BBC WEBSITE!!!!!!!!!!!! Come on guys how offical do you want? it's called 'Time Crash' and it's got peter davidson in! Lollypop2 10:53, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

As you've been told, we're not debating whether the fact that it exists is official, we're debating whether or not it has its place in the canon or whether it's supposed to be fictional. Please listen to what we tell you.--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 10:55, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Peter Davison :-) Stephenb (Talk) 12:34, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Lollypop2 - it is somewhere. Just now, we have it mentioned at the bottom of Season 4 and beyond.  We do not yet know if it will be an official story (like Doctor Who:Children in Need), or simply a spoof, so we can't put it before VOTD yet.  Stuart  DD  contributions 12:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I've put it back in the table. The chance of this episode not being canon are slim to none, (at the risk of sounding speculative) considering the title "Time Crash" and the events at the end of "Last of the Time Lords". — Edokter  •  Talk  • 14:11, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, LotTL flows totally into VotD, I'd have said. "Time Crash" could refer to something completely different.--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 14:41, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I say leave it out the table, because we cannot verify that it will be an official story. Stuart  DD  contributions 14:52, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree - I'd remove it myself but I'm at 3RR level.--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 14:56, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not, actually - I checked. It's now removed from the table.--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 14:57, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Tell you what... you all owe me a case of Carlsberg when I'm proven right. :) — Edokter  •  Talk  • 15:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Tell you what... I laughed more at the tubes of tomato puree in Tescos than at that.--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 15:05, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * At least try to be civil about it... — Edokter  •  Talk  • 15:14, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * About what? I'm winning here.--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 15:16, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Winning what? The "snide-comments" competition? — Edokter  •  Talk  • 15:23, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I was thinking about the debate re: the appearance in the table. But the snide-comments too - they're my speciality. For example, see this followed by this.--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 15:24, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, dear — I just added it again without having checked the history or talk page. Bad Wikipedian. /slaps own wrist/ If I had seen the edit war in progress, I wouldn't have contributed to it, and if someone who's not at the 3RR limit reverts me I won't put it back in.

Honestly, though, I don't see what the fuss is about. It's been announced on the official site, and the most recent precedent, produced by the same production team, is obviously canonical and is included in the table, so why shouldn't this one be? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 16:53, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Obviously canonical? What implies that? Stephenb (Talk) 16:55, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't mind the inclusion. And where is the rule again that says episodes in the table need to be canon? — Edokter  •  Talk  • 17:00, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * You're opening up a whole barrel of worms there :-) Perhaps we should include Dimensions in Time or In a Fix with the Sontarans there..? This *could* be of a similar style... Stephenb (Talk) 17:01, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * It can go either way. I any case, the list can always be changed. If it is a spoof, it goes out again. We shouldn't be too anal about including episodes that could or could not be canon. But many signals tell me it's canon; The last CiN special was canon. And wasn't the fifth Doctor on the Titanic? Which happen to "crash" into the TARDIS? — Edokter  •  Talk  • 17:08, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * You're just adding to the article because you *hope* it's going to accepted as canonical eventually..? "Many signals tell you" isn't good enough, and neither is the fact that the last CiN special is generally considered canonical - this is an encyclopaedia that requires references and citations.  "Time Crash" may well be just a coincidence.  We simply don't know and that's the point - please don't (re)include incorrect information on the page. Stephenb (Talk) 17:12, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Calling it "incorrect information" is going a bit too far, Stephen — there's nothing in the article which clearly states that the episodes and serials listed in the table are canonical, nor should there be (since the concept of "Doctor Who canon" is problematic at best). That said, although I fully expect that "Time Crash" will follow directly on from the ending of "Last of the Time Lords" and will be accepted as being as "canonical" as its 2005 predecessor was, I'm willing to leave it off the table, since there aren't any reliable sources which confirm my expectations.  I'm slightly surprised that this is controversial, but since it apparently is we shouldn't be edit warring over it. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:18, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, there is: List of Doctor Who serials implies exactly that. And that's where, for example, 'Dimensions in Time is listed (see my comment above). Stephenb (Talk) 17:21, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmm. If you're reading that as an absolute declaration of canonicity, that's slightly problematic.  Although there is a fan consensus that things like "Jim'll Fix It" and "Curse of Fatal Death" aren't canonical, there are good arguments for saying that "The Infinite Quest", for example, is.  I even know some fans who claim that "Dimensions in Time" is canonical — and that was certainly John Nathan-Turner's intention at the time.  Remember that "Doctor Who canon" doesn't really exist: the most you can say is that such-and-such is "generally regarded" as canonical or part of the series' continuity' (which is what that section actually says: nothing about canon, just whether it's part of the narrative thread).—Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Very true, I apologise for the misappropriation of "canon"; however, the nub of the argument is unchanged: we don't yet know whether Time Crash fits into continuity yet either. Stephenb (Talk) 17:40, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I think we're getting our knickers in a twist about nothing, really.


 * Porcupine says: we're debating whether or not it has its place in the canon or whether it's supposed to be fictional.


 * Doctor Who stories are all fictional--every single one. We write our articles from an out-of-universe perspective, so production and broadcasting take precedence over some putative in-universe chronology or continuity.


 * This one is a Children in Need special, and it's being produced by a team whose membership has been confirmed. The writer, Stephen Moffat, has won several awards for his main-series episodes, and the program will feature not one but two actors widely known for their portrayal of the Doctor.  Chronologically the broadcast will take place between the end of series three and the Christmas 2007 special.  As such, it should be listed, just as the 2005 and 2006 Children in Need specials are listed.


 * Those who are asking that it be omitted from the list of broadcast programs because they don't think it's "canon" are unintentionally doing Wikipedia a disservice. It is a Doctor Who television story written by a renowned Doctor Who writer and starring two famous portrayers of Doctor Who.  Of course it should be listed.  Arguments about canon are better held on the fan sites, where in-universe events are given a much higher significance. --Tony Sidaway 17:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Ooh, no... the people trying to include it in a table listing stories generally considered part of Doctor Who continuity are doing Wikipedia a disservice. Anyone visiting and finding it in the table will automatically assume, based entirely on nothing but speculation here, that it will fit into continuity.  I've no objection to it being in the article, but not (yet) in the table until we know more information.  Steven Moffat, BTW (I should know :-) ) Stephenb (Talk) 17:47, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Edited to add: Tony, continuity is purely "in universe" - who made it has little bearing. There's no evidence either way, unfortunately. Stephenb (Talk) 17:52, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Irrespective of what you may wish it to be, the list is of Doctor Who serials. Continuity, as an in-universe matter best left to fan site discussion, is not the issue and never was.  Doctor Who stories should be listed in it in chronological order of first broadcast. --Tony Sidaway 18:11, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

section break
"Those who are asking that it be omitted from the list of broadcast programs because they don't think it's "canon" are unintentionally doing Wikipedia a disservice." - It's not a canon argument at all. we don not yet know if the speecial will be official, so we should not have it in the main list. On every other issue, we have waited for confirmation - why jump that procedure here? "Tell you what... you all owe me a case of Carlsberg when I'm proven right." - being right or not is irrelevent. Several IP's may be right about Davros or Rose, but we don't have that because it is unconfirmed. " many signals tell me it's canon" - looks like WP:OR to me. Stuart DD  contributions 18:08, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Of course it's official. It's been announced by the BBC. --Tony Sidaway 18:12, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, its official, but to put it baldly: It is incorrect to imply at this time, by adding Time Crash to the table, that it will fit into generally accepted continuity. It may eventually fit into the "Other stories" section.  Stephenb (Talk) 18:16, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The only thing including it will imply is that it is a Doctor Who "episode" (which is stated). — Edokter  •  Talk  • 18:24, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * DiT was an episode. The Infinite Quest was a serial.  Including it will imply that it has more continuity than these.  Proof? Stephenb (Talk) 19:39, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * There is nothing wrong with a little common sense. Everything points to continuity: Beside the "crash", every other non- canon continuity CiN/Comic Relief special had either 1) a crossover with another series 2) The docter played by someone else. Thsi episode not being in-continuity is just as much a guess... — Edokter  •  Talk  • 18:17, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * "Everything points to" is WP:OR and pure speculation. Cite me where a member of the production team says it is within continuity... Stephenb (Talk) 18:18, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The solution to the perceived problem here is to stop claiming that the list of television episodes has anything to do with in-universe concepts such as continuity. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a fan site. --Tony Sidaway 18:19, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree. Now, put your money where your mouth is, open that barrel of worms and start inserting Dimensions in Time et al in the table (not just Time Crash)... :-) Stephenb (Talk) 18:22, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Remember this is being slated as an episode, not a special. And like I said earlier, if it proves to be wrong, then we move it to Other Stories. — Edokter  •  Talk  • 18:24, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * So, until proven wrong, we insert something that might be misleading..? Right...! Unencyclopaedic, sorry.  Was "In a Fix with the Sontarans" billed as a special episode?  :-) Stephenb (Talk) 18:27, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't see why Dimensions in Time is absent. Was this discussed? --Tony Sidaway 18:25, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, so is "Attack of the Graske" (made by much the same production team etc.). Stephenb (Talk) 18:27, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, and The Infinite Quest should be in there, too. Same stars etc... Personally, I'd just leave it as it is, with Time Crash left out until we know for certain. But that's my last word tonight :-) Stephenb (Talk) 18:29, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * "Of course it's official" - it May be a spoof. It may not be - we don't know yet
 * Dimensions in Time is not an official story, so should not go in the main list
 * Attack of the Graske was designed for people to play, and gave a score at the end - it cannot be considered official. Not even the bbc has it -.

Stuart DD  contributions 18:32, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Now we're getting slightly WP:POINTy... — Edokter  •  Talk  • 18:34, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

More and more editors start including the episode in the table. Together with this discussion I take that as sign of consensus, and reverting it would be couterproductive. I say, leave it be; it can always be changed. This is not worth the energy we're putting into this debate. — Edokter  •  Talk  • 18:51, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, I know above was "my last word", but... "Reverting it would be counterproductive" - no, it wouldn't, it would be removing an assumption that all those editors (yes, the ones that haven't edited any other article and are contributing to your "consensus"...) have made too. In no way do I agree we have reached consensus on this discussion.  It can always be changed? Yes, but this is an encyclopaedia, not a crystal ball, nor a fan site.  It is therefore worth the energy, hence why I'm replying later than I would like.  You're either (a) trying to prove something you'd like it to be (within continuity) but have no proof or (b) trying to say it is a special case, different from DiT or The Infinite Quest, which we have no proof of either.  Personally, I'm now hoping it is outside of continuity!  Either way, including it makes the article either inconsistent (No Infinite Quest etc.) or wrong (it cannot be proven yet whether it is within continuity).  Stephenb (Talk) 19:39, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I still think that "wrong" is putting it too strongly. As Tony says, we really shouldn't be using fan-based metrics like canon or continuity on Wikipedia anyway.  And as for inconsistency, remember that "a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds".  It's true that we have no proof that this will be treated as a regular episode of Doctor Who, but based on the most recent precedent it's a reasonable assumption to make.


 * It's also worth noting (putting moderator hat on) that regardless of who is "right" or "wrong" in this, the edit war is itself counterproductive. It would behoove everyone in this discussion to remember the three-revert rule, and try to refrain from reverting, even if you think that the article has been left in The Wrong Version. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:54, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Don't fret over it, Stephen. Nothing is proven, true, but we will have proof on November 16. And I can't help thinking you know I'm right; you "hoping" now that it isn't continuity proves that :) And I don't think it is either inconsistent or wrong, just a teeny bit OR based on common sense... — Edokter  •  Talk  • 20:02, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, not fretting, just a bit irritated :-) You may well be right eventually - my whole issue here is that you can't prove it, and until you can, it's simply wrong to include it as it is.  I'm looking forward to the ep - the main reason I'm hoping it's not in continuity is because I've just seen the photo of Davison... Stephenb (Talk) 20:05, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * And just for a laugh: There_is_no_common_sense :) Stephenb (Talk) 20:09, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

In an attempt to reach consensus, I have added the following. Though voting 'is evil', and so in no way binding, this will at least help to clarify the matter and hopefully get more editors opinions Stephenb (Talk) 20:02, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Straw poll
Which episodes should be included in the table of Doctor Who serials? Option 1: Only those broadcast within series continuity (i.e. excluding, for example, The Infinite Quest, and, until we know better, Time Crash) Option 2: All those that are not spoofs or include elements of other TV shows (i.e. including TIQ but not DiT or In a Fix with the Sontarans, or, until we know better, Time Crash) Option 3: All episodes, regardless of continuity (i.e. including Time Crash) Option 4: Your own thoughts, with justification

I'll vote option 2 Stephenb (Talk) 20:02, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * In the interest of reminding us all that polling is not a substitute for discussion, I've taken the liberty of renaming this section. Actually, option 2 sounds like a reasonable compromise and one which would fit with Wikipedia guidelines and would include the serials and episodes which most Doctor Who fans think "count".  The latter is unimportant for Wikipedia's purposes, except insofar as it's Doctor Who fans who are likely to edit this page and if we can find a solution which is consistent with the views of most Doctor Who fans, we're more likely to avoid an edit war. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:22, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I concur with Josiah. Stephenb's second option seems reasonable.  We can wait untill we know more about the nature of Time Crash (it could conceivably be a "Curse of the Fatal Death"-style romp) --Tony Sidaway 20:28, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Ooh, I think I misread "option 2" — I was thinking that it was saying that TIQ and "Time Crash" would both be included "until we know better". That's my preference, actually, but I'm willing to leave "Time Crash" off the table for the sake of harmony. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:52, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I would go for 2 as well, preferring to include "Time Crash" until we know better, because there will always be fans putting it in, and protecting is not an option. I would include TIQ as well; because it is done using the original cast, broadcast and was neither a cross-over or special, just animated. — Edokter  •  Talk  • 21:06, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Option two is reasonable. Will (talk) 22:09, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I really think that we can hold off on Time Crash for now (we already mention it and disclose everything verifiable about it, for now, in one section of the article).


 * I think I detect a sense that we are all in agreement that, when we actually see the episode, we'll be in a better position to classify it. We all agree, I think, that the Doctor Who name has often been used (and perhaps abused) for some extraordinary purposes.  The BBC has always done this--I recall a rather lovely trailer for a new season, in which Frankie Howerd appeared with some fully costumed Zarbi.  A nine-year-old at the time, I fully expected to see Frankie Howerd appear in Doctor Who, and was very disappointed when he did not.  It's easy to get the wrong impression of things from trailers, so let's hold off until we know what's happening. --Tony Sidaway 02:24, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * That sounds reasonable to me. Although I suspect that if we remove "Time Crash" from the table, we'll have a lot of people adding it over the next month. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:38, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Uh-oh... I just restored it, having noticed a) StuartDD's concern over a missing reference, and b) that VitasV was the one who deleted it without bothering to leave any sort of explanation. What is the consensus, then? --Ckatz chat spy  08:53, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I pick option one because we wont know better until it is released. If I'm right, it would be something like The Infinite Quest where it does fit in with the storyline but shown at some random date. If I'm right, it would possibly take place in the Doctor Who universe, after Voyage of the Damned. --VitasV 04:42, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Remember that this list is a list of episodes and serials, not a chronology of the Doctor's life.  We don't know where "The Infinite Quest" fits in, but it was broadcast as both a serial (during Totally Doctor Who) and as an episode (on its own).  I don't see why it shouldn't be included in the list. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:17, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Under, I'd say. Started airing after S&J and only stopped six hours before LOTTL. Continuity wise, it's after Lazarus at any rate. Will (talk) 11:51, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I say 1 or 2 - I don't mind which. I will say again - we don't know if it is official. but if we agree to have it in, then I'll go with that. Stuart DD  contributions 08:15, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Option two, for what it's worth. And I'd say it would save everyone a load of trouble if we keep Time Crash in for the time being, and delete it if it turns out to be non-canon, instead of reverting it a million times before it's broadcast. -- Kjet 09:41, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree, although I think that as Stephenb originally formulated it "Option two" was meant to exclude "Time Crash" for the time being. (I was confused about it, myself.)


 * It looks as if there's a rough consensus for the principle behind "Option two", that is to include "All those that are not spoofs or include elements of other TV shows". This would admit "The Infinite Quest" but exclude "Dimensions in Time", "Jim'll Fix It" and "The Curse of Fatal Death".  The main disagreement is whether we can assume that "Time Crash" will be allowable under these criteria or whether we need to wait for proof (that is, broadcast).


 * My preference is to keep it in the table for now, mainly because I know that if it's not in the table people will be constantly adding it between now and the broadcast. I suppose I'm suggesting a "silent consensus", if such a thing exists — I predict that anons will add it on a near-daily basis if it's kept out of the table.  Do you know the parable of the oak tree and the reed?  The oak tree believed that he was strong, because he stood tall and did not bend, whereas the reed bent with every breeze.  Then a storm came, and the winds lashed the oak and the reed: the oak tree snapped in the tempest, but the reed merely bent down, and when the storm was over it bent back up again.  This parable is sometimes used to illustrate the Taoist principle of wu wei: the strength of knowing when not to act.  I don't think that constantly reverting the addition of "Time Crash" to the table between now and its broadcast is worth the energy it would take.  If we leave it in the table, we will be like the reed, and there will be no need to act. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 10:25, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * OK - I'll agree to having it in till broadcast. But if it turns out to be a spoof or unofficial, then it goes in "other stories".  Stuart  DD  contributions 10:31, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Fair enough — although I still don't understand what you mean by "official". It's being produced by the current production team, at the Upper Boat studios in Cardiff; it'll be broadcast on BBC One; it's been announced on the official Doctor Who website.  How much more official can it get?  If you're talking about continuity or canonicity, I agree that we can't tell yet, but it seems unarguably "official" to me. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 10:42, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * "If you're talking about continuity or canonicity" - I am. If it doesn't fit (and that will be clear once it airs) then it is unofficial (like DIT or "a fix with sontarans").  Stuart  DD  contributions 10:54, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * No. Concerns such as canonicity and continuity don't make a TV program any less "official".  Let's take a quite famous concrete example: Patrick Duffy left the case of Dallas in 1985, and was written out of the program by a fatal car crash in which his character died on camera.  He was enticed back by the program-makers in 1986, and his reappearance caused continuity problems in both Dallas and its spin-off, Knott's Landing.  The program-makers simply got out their narrative darning needles and stitched together a rather rickety retcon (Pam, it was said, had dreamed the events of an entire season), but continuity problems still remained.  This notwithstanding, there is no suggestion that the 1985-6 "dream season" is less a part of Dallas, as a broadcast and production entity, although there may be many people who regard the narrative of that season an anomaly and not part of Dallas continuity. --Tony Sidaway 14:12, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * that's official in terms of who it is made by. The official I'm taking about is in terms of whether this will actually fit in somewhere or not.  Stuart  DD  contributions 14:25, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I am simply saying that DIT, "a fix" and Curse of fatal death do not belong - because they don't fit in the universe. If Time Crash is something like that, then it should not go in - this will be much clearer once it has actually been shown.  Stuart  DD  contributions 14:28, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * We write Wikpedia articles on works of fiction from an out-of-universe perspective. Even accepting your redefinition of the word "official", it is of no concern to us. --Tony Sidaway 14:29, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Just like to remind everyone that in a hundred years time all this talk of "continuity" and "canon" and "official" won't matter much. Cf. King Arthur, Robin Hood and (more recently) Superman.  DonQuixote 15:29, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

"We write Wikpedia articles on works of fiction from an out-of-universe perspective." - correct, but this is a list of television stories - and official ones should not be mixed with unofficial ones. I doubt anyone would argue for the inclusion of Curse of Fatal Death in the main list as that is a spoof. If Time Crash turns out to be a spoof, then it should be in the same section as that, rather than the same section as the other stories. Stuart DD  contributions 20:51, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * No-one is arguing that. But it's best to leave Time Crash in for now, otherwise this article will turn into a revert war trying to counter all the fans putting it back. — Edokter  •  Talk  • 21:14, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I've already agreed to that. Stuart  DD  contributions 21:17, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

i say option 4, only time crash should go in because infinite quest is a cartoon of the tv series, its like lumping together Sarah Jane Smith stories, torchwood and doctor who episodes together! (by the way do we need to archive this page yet? its getting a bit long!)--Lerdthenerd 13:07, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, been away (enforced by non-Wikipedian events, unfortunately) and I see that Time Crash it still there but, for example, TIQ isn't. Well, I think as it it the article is potentially misleading Wikipedia readers into believing that the scene will definitely fit into continuity (which it may well do, but there is no evidence for). However, I'm no longer going to argue my case: sadly, and perhaps ironically, no time at the moment. Thanks to Josiah for renaming it to "Straw Poll" though - good idea. Interesting discussion. Cheers Stephenb (Talk) 18:41, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I still don't think it's about continuity. Putting an episode on this article doesn't imply anything at all about continuity, but rather it is about productions. --Tony Sidaway 19:46, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The "crossover" stipulation is a little odd and arbitrary. Let's project that logic a bit. If there were an otherwise normal episode set in modern-day New York, and Richard Belzer were to stroll on-set in the role of Detective Munch, would that mean the episode would be stricken from the list? Lots of shows have cross-overs; it's not that big a deal in and of itself.


 * I would suggest a variant of option 2: all self-standing televised Doctor Who productions, aside from spoofs. So, for instance, this would have omitted The Infinite Quest (1), except that the serial was immediately compiled and broadcast as its own standalone entity. Its final few minutes were never even broadcast on Totally. To contrast, "A Fix with Sontarans" was nothing more than a segment for Jim'll Fix it. And it was also a spoof.


 * What this would include, then, is all the standard in-continuity television episodes and specials, plus Dimensions in Time(2), "Attack of the Graske" (3), and — in its final, compiled form — "The Infinite Quest".


 * I suppose you could interpret Children in Need as a sort of an umbrella production, and anything broadcast during the telethon as a segment of the greater whole. That's probably a wonky way of looking at it, though; it's not so much a standalone show itself so much as it is a themed event.


 * For what it's worth, A Brief History of Time (Travel) includes DiT on its list of televised stories. Whatever anyone might personally think about it, it is in many respects a significant (if strange) footnote in the show's broadcast history.


 * (1) For twelve weeks it was broadcast as just a weekly segment to a talk show.
 * (2) Devised and broadcast as its own entity, within the context of Children in Need, Intended, anyway, as a legitimate Doctor Who story, however bizarre and apparently out-of-continuity it may have turned out.
 * (3) Broadcast as its own televised Doctor Who production; isn't a spoof. --Aderack 11:57, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

When Time Crash takes place
According to some fans whose Series 3 boxsets shipped early, on the commentary track for Last of the Time Lords David Tennant says Time Crash takes place during the last few minutes of LotTL. Just after Martha leaves, and just before the Titanic/TARDIS crash. Could someone with a copy of the Boxset confirm this? GracieLizzie 19:22, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Attack of the Graske
Someone added this, but I removed it because it doesn't really go. But should we have this? I think it was an interactive game rather than a proper story, but what do others think. Stuart DD  contributions 09:00, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd say, put it in. It is a true 10th Doctor episode, and it was on TV, somewhat... — Edokter  •  Talk  • 15:38, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think it was an episode per say - it was more of a game than anything.  Stuart  DD  contributions 21:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It was neither a spoof or crossover, had a plot and fits within the continuity. Just my opinion. — Edokter  •  Talk  • 23:26, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, as it was indirectly refered to in Whatever Happened to Sarah Jane?, then I'll accept it. Stuart DD  contributions 19:05, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't wont to add this, although to be honest if we are having Infinite Quest then sure.--Wiggstar69 19:19, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not exactly comfortable with it, but as it was produced by the BBC, it doesn't really belong in the same section as a spoof and a cross-over.  Stuart  DD  contributions 19:27, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * There are spoofs created by the BBC, I'd say it was real Doctor Who, but not 'in series' simmilar with TIQ--Wiggstar69 19:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Infinite Quest

 * The Infinite Quest was absolutly great, but it isn't 'in series' continuaty and is a cartoon, it is mentioned at the bottom of the page and doesn't need to be in the table.--Wiggstar69 20:39, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The rest of the talkpage disagrees with you. TIQ can easily fit in continuity, between, say, TLE and 42. Will (talk) 20:43, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'll live with it.--Wiggstar69 22:03, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It doesnt contain anything essential to the series unlike the Children in Need Specials. Its like a spin-off. You might as well put the rest of the other TV specials in the episode list KP-TheSpectre 21:01, 7 November 2007 (BST)
 * The BBC regard it as continuity (see Martha's blog, which was comissioned by the BBC) Will (talk) 22:12, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I picked up an encyclopedia on Doctor Who (official enough to be mentioned here) and it has both AOTG and Infinite quest - so I think that proves that they are part of the coninuity. Stuart DD  contributions 22:04, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Julie Gardner quote needed?
I'm in the middle of tidying up the citations — there's more to do — and I noticed this quotation from Julie Gardner: "I'm going to tease you by telling you there is a classic monster that returns, but that's as far as I'm going to go." Surely she was talking about the Sontarans, whose presence was revealed after that interview? I'm inclined to remove the quote (leaving the RTD one, which may have a different referent). Anyone object? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 23:32, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, she may have been refering to something else, but I don't think we need it in.  Stuart  DD  contributions 20:37, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It's gone. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:07, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It's difficult to say as the reference to a 'classic monster' would suggest that an individual monster is returning such as Davros or the Myrka. DavidFarmbrough (talk) 12:58, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Citations cleaned up
I've finally finished cleaning up the citations: I checked every Doctor Who Magazine reference, and separated them by the article which had the relevant information. I also found that a lot of references to the BBC Doctor Who website were inaccurately credited to BBC News, which is a completely different branch of the BBC. Please don't confuse bbc.co.uk/doctorwho/news/ with news.bbc.co.uk/! Thanks. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:28, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

This is starting to get away from what this page is about
This page started as a list of the DW serials and it remains that until we get to the series four section. This area has now become a receptical for all sorts of info about the fourth series. Some confirmed and some not. Do we really need a list of all the guest stars? We don't list them for any of the other years. I feel that all of this info about season four should be moved to its own page as it detracts from what the pages function is and should remain. However if the consensus of the DW wikiproject is that this is okay then I will go along with it I am just posting this as food for thought. MarnetteD | Talk 22:32, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It has it's place here... for now. At least until all the information can be moved to their respective episode articles. — Edokter  •  Talk  • 23:11, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, that was before I saw the entire guest cast listed. I agree we should condense the Series 4 section to the most important, and possibly move the rest to Doctor Who, or a seperate article. — Edokter  •  Talk  • 23:20, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

We don't need the full list of guest stars in the article, especially as so many have no source. Stuart DD  contributions 22:39, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Season three synopsis
The third season (i.e. 2007 season) is NOT just about the Face of Boe's message and Mr. Saxon. There is a third arc involving the Doctor's recovery after losing Rose. it is referenced continually in the episodes, and by the production crew in the DVD commentaries, interviews, etc etc. If this is "too much detail" then there should be NO reference to any of the arcs. 68.146.41.232 (talk) 03:55, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I would agree with the detail about Rose, but some of the other things you added do not need to be here.  Stuart  DD  contributions 11:02, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

What does this do?
Can someone tell me what does to the page? Stuart DD  contributions 11:19, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * See Edit-top-section. — Edokter  •  Talk  • 12:39, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Stuart  DD  contributions 12:49, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Jack
I know that it is unconfirmed that he will be a companion, but we do know he will return, so should we put this under "guest stars"? Stuart DD  contributions 13:26, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Guest stars, not companions. The BBC source for Billie's return says three (Tate, Agyeman, Piper), and I'm sure they'd mention Barrowman in the list as it's common knowledge. Will (talk) 15:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes - I know the source says Three - hence the "unconfirmed that he will be a companion". However, we know that he will feature, so should we put that in under the guest stars section?  We don't have to state that he will be a companion - we can just state that he will feature.  Stuart  DD  contributions 15:12, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Hm... it is almost definite he will appear, although there hasn't been any reliable source for this, a small internet site had an interveiw with barrowmen saying it was definite - but as far as I was aware it was not being taken as reliable from here and OG.--Wiggstar69 (talk) 15:31, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Season/series
How come the primarily American term "season" is being used instead of "series" for Doctors 1-7?  Mi re ma re  01:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Most sites, such as BBC's Classic Episode Guide, OG, and A Brief History, use the term "season" for the classic series. Will (talk) 01:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, so they do. Cheers,  Mi re ma re  22:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

"The Cartmel Masterplan"
What is "The Cartmel Masterplan"? - I've never really heard of it. Is that the "far more than another Time Lord" part that never came through? (apologies if this counts as forum talk, but we should explain what it is) Stuart  DD  contributions 11:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Amusingly, there is an article: Cartmel Masterplan... But it's a misnomer - there never really was a "masterplan" according to Cartmel (in some recent interview - the Survival DVD IIRC) just some ideas that were knocking around, mostly by Marc Platt and Ben Aaronovitch, about the Doctor's origins. These ideas were expanded upon in the NA Lungbarrow.  It you ever hear the term "Loombollocks" you'll know where it comes from now :-) Stephenb (Talk) 11:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * If there was no plan, then should we have this information at all? Stuart  DD  contributions 12:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * IMHO no, especially if the Doctor is described as the tautological "engimatic enigma"! Stephenb (Talk) 13:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Fire on set
Following up on the FLC, a minor point raised by User:SatyrTN was "Is Fire on the Set really necessary on this list?". So I'll put this up for discussion - do we really need that section? Stuart DD  contributions 14:49, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't feel that we do. A simple paragraph under "production" would suffice, IMO.--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 14:58, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I would go for that myself - it isn't important enought to warrant a separate section. Stuart  DD  contributions 15:03, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I've removed the header. — Edokter  •  Talk  • 15:05, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Catalogue Numbers
It strikes me that, whereas we're currently using (correct me if I'm wrong) completely arbitrary codes to identify each serial, there are actually official BBC Catalogue numbers (see here). Would it not be wise to use those? The 'arbitrary' codes used onthis page are in fact probably more logical than those from the catalogue, so perhaps both should be included? Just want to see what other people's opinion is on this... The Islander 16:27, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * They are including unnoficial spoofs which most people do not count as connon.--Wiggs (talk) 17:01, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, clearly - everything is assigned a catalogue number. That doesn't explain why we shouldn't have the relevant numbers here, though. The Islander 18:54, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

The series 4 table
A few people have tried to start the series 4 table. Before we get into edit wars, should we have it? Stuart DD  contributions 19:39, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I only saw one attempt so far. I think we should hold off until we have at least half the episode titles. — Edokter  •  Talk  • 20:02, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I think a couple of unregistered users have tried it, and another quite a while back. I agree that we should wait, we know only one title and very few episode numbers.  Stuart  DD  contributions 20:32, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree that now isn't the time, although I don't know if we need to wait for half the episode titles. Three or four titles would be good, though. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:48, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed with Josiah, for what it's worth. -- Kjet 22:13, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * We have 3 titles now (Partners in Crime, Planet of the Ood, and The Sontaran Stratagem) and 2 possible ones (TUATW, The Year That Never Was/Mysterious Creature). Should we get started? -- DC 16:38, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Where do the eps 2 and 7 titles come from? — Edokter  •  Talk  • 16:51, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Episode count
Can someone give an accurate episode count, without CIN/AOTG/TIQ/TC? I'm counting about 745... Will (talk) 17:38, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I really dont feel we should have AOTG and TIQ on the main table, when it comes to the episode count it makes things a lot more complicated. And They are really considered as real episodes.--Wiggs (talk) 18:01, 8 December 2007 (UTC)Đ
 * I get 737/1/2/2 from List of science fiction film and television series by lengths. Will (talk) 18:14, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I get 736 without shada - assuming of course that TVM is counted as the film. Note that I used Resurrection OTD as 2 episodes.  Stuart  DD  contributions 15:36, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * If we choose to not ocunt shada there will have to be a footnote similar to AOTG and TIQ. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiggstar69 (talk • contribs) 22:43, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I wasn't not counting shada - I just found that the only was to match the total was to exclude it. Either we have it in the count, or we extend the curent note to explain that it is not counted.  Stuart  DD  contributions 11:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

missing references
two references have gone missing in the production table. They were multi-referenced, so I assume the initial data went in the last update. Can someone please put the old references in for these. Stuart DD  contributions 11:15, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I found them in an old revision. In future, can those adding new DWM material make sure they don't delete the old references as they are probably needed for other things as well.  Stuart  DD  contributions 11:22, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

DWM 390
I'm afraid I don't have the time to update this myself, but I understand two Series 4 episode titles have been announced:

Episode 1 - Partners in Crime

Episode 4 - The Sontaran Stratagem

Radagast (talk) 18:01, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Someone put this in as well, but needs a reference:
 * Episode 2: Planet of the Ood
 * Episede 7: (Agatha Christy episode)
 * — Edokter  •  Talk  • 16:49, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm pretty sure I've seen 4.2 for Planet of the ood with a reference before. Also, 4.7 went in last time for the agatha christie episode, but I removed it as it was unsourced.  Stuart  DD  contributions 19:51, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Can anyone confirm that the "Pompeii episode" is episode 2? On the (now hidden) series 4 table, an IP kept putting planet of the Ood as 4.2  Stuart  DD  contributions 21:44, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Right, I managed to find it in the shops, and have found the page that sources this. Also, the reference for the production blocks in 6 and 7 was not quite right. I quote: by the time you read it, we'll be in the middle of filming three episdoes, a block of two and a block of one, similtaneously. Episodes 6,8 and 11, all together." It does not specify which ones are in which block. Stuart  DD  contributions 15:22, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I have also heard that Planet of the Ood is 4.2, and Pompeii 4.3. DC 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The latest DWM specifically staes that episode 2 is the pompeii episode.  Stuart  DD  contributions 13:08, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

DWM 388
Can anyone who got DWM 388 please check what episodes were being filmed. An IP put this edit in, but I cannot verify that. Stuart DD  contributions 13:10, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

The Series 4 table
has started the series 4 table. Although there is a lot of detail, I still don't think we have enough to start the table. Also, we can't assume that the last two episodes will be a two parter unless we have a source. Stuart DD  contributions 21:20, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Its fairly obvious that 4.12 and 4.13 are going to be two parters. I think we should have the first half of S4 on there (seeing as we know nothing of anything past 4.7). DC 11:06, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * No, that was actually an assumption... We don't know yet if it is a double-parter; it coutld be a three parter... — Edokter  •  Talk  • 11:10, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Hence why I removed the story numbers until further notice while I was reorganising. Will (talk) 12:06, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't really complaining about the serial numbers - I was trying to get a discussion about whether the table should be in or not. Stuart DD  contributions 12:09, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * If it's kept hidden, I see nothing wrong with it. Reduces the work we do later. Will (talk) 12:17, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I mean, should we have it in the article? Is there enough information to have it, or should we leave it in the hidden text?  Stuart  DD  contributions 12:26, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Be prepared for a few IP edits
Today's Daily Mail had an interview with RTD, so be prepared for numerous IP edits citing rumours etc with this interview. Stuart DD  contributions 11:29, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Serial 192
Why are we implementing a serial count that differs from both Outpost Gallifrey and the DW Reference Guide? Giving TIQ numer 192 is now both unsourced and inconsistent with other sources. I say we follow the DW Ref Guide and put 192 back to "Voyage of the Damned". — Edokter  •  Talk  • 14:40, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree, TIQ as well as the CIN episodes are only there for completion, they are not counted as actual serials.--Wiggs (talk) 15:22, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The number "737", on the show's article, only works if TIQ is included. Will (talk) 15:28, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't get what you mean by "737" its 736?--Wiggs (talk) 15:34, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the 737 on the main page counted TVM as 1 episode. Stuart  DD  contributions 15:39, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * TVM is one episode, I think the 737 was counting TIQ, which I don't believe should count other then on the list of serials as an unumbered episode. I canged it to 736, is that wrong? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiggstar69 (talk • contribs) 15:43, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * the 737 on THIS page was for TIQ, the 737 on the Doctor Who page was for TVM. Stuart  DD  contributions 15:52, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The episode count as of July 8, 2006 was 723, which was the official number given as a world record. I think that yes, TVM is included in the count. Will (talk) 15:46, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * So, should we have that in the episode count, or keep it separate as the "one movie"? Stuart  DD  contributions 15:53, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * "737 episodes (including two movies)". T5D and DW are similar in length anyway. Will (talk) 15:55, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'd go with TVM as one episode. Just one question, what are the 4 charity specials.  I count 3 - CIN, TC and DIT.  Stuart  DD  contributions 16:06, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The fourth is Curse of Fatal Death. Will (talk) 16:07, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Does that really count? - it was a spoof. Stuart  DD  contributions 16:10, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * To be fair, A Fix with Sontarans and DiT didn't really make sense either, but are included. Will (talk) 16:17, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

New Series Production Codes
I've just noticed that TV.com has production codes listed for all the main episodes of the new series - How realiable a source is TV.com for these sorts of things? If reliable, should these be added to this list and their relevent pages? (Etron81 (talk) 15:34, 13 December 2007 (UTC))
 * TV.com is edited by users like wikipedia is edited by users like us so its not reliable, however we have used it before.--Lerdthenerd (talk) 18:58, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The codes here are the ones used in the encyclopedia I have - and I think they are the official ones. Stuart  DD  contributions 19:50, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Which Encyclopedia is that? Perhaps that could be a more reputable source (Etron81 (talk) 22:32, 13 December 2007 (UTC))
 * It's the encyclopedia I mentioned here Stuart  DD  contributions 15:18, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Err, *coughcough*, look at the section I started above, entitled 'Catalogue Numbers'. Nice how that got mostly ignored... I am the editor for the TV.com guide, and, if you look at that not-entirely-invisible section just above, you'll see the official source for them. The Islander 00:30, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't those codes are official, I think those are numbers for selling/ ordering purposes. Stuart  DD  contributions 16:39, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * They're more official than the codes you cite, bearing in mind that they're from the BBC itself, and not a third-party encyclopedia. I'll be adding them in shortly if there are no further objections. The Islander 15:28, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * They're both official. However, TV.com uses catalogue codes (which are not actually production codes), we use the production codes used on the BBC epiode pages. — Edokter  •  Talk  • 15:52, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we can include both for thw new series? (Etron81 (talk) 16:00, 18 December 2007 (UTC))

Note for users
Following an IP adding a "possible title", I feel the need to tell people what DWM stated. On page 4 of the latest DWM, it states that there is a hidden title somewhere. Any title from page 4 other than the sontaran one (which is specifically stated as the title) is just speculation and should be reverted. Stuart DD  contributions 16:37, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Way not prevent IP from adding to the article since the arricle is now feture. The Tramp 19:25, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that is a bit to far. Some IP's can give useful contributions.  Admitedly, not that many, but Indefinate protection is still too far.  Stuart  DD  contributions 19:32, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Err, not just is it too far, but it actually goes against the rules for protection - it strikes me that the level of vandalism from IPs to this page is well, well below that that would warrent protection. The Islander 22:22, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

"Other Stories"
Should these be on this list at all as they're covered in Doctor Who spin-offs? (Etron81 (talk) 21:10, 17 December 2007 (UTC))
 * Yes, Doctor Who TV stories that are (co-)produced by the BBC should be on the list. — Edokter  •  Talk  • 21:49, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * What about the webcasts? They're not TV stories as such (although I gather Shalka was available via the "Red Button") (Etron81 (talk) 22:49, 17 December 2007 (UTC))
 * I'm not sure - but I think it was just made available on the web. I'd argue for the TV broadcasts section to stay - but I'm not sure about the webcasts.  Stuart  DD  contributions 11:37, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * That would be my inclination as well - Keep the TV broadcasts, but let the Spinoff list cover the webcasts(Etron81 (talk) 15:58, 18 December 2007 (UTC))
 * The webcasts were produced/commissioned by the BBC as well. I think they should stay in, as they are visual stories. — Edokter  •  Talk  • 16:19, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * All bar Shalka were produced primarily as audio stories though... (Etron81 (talk) 16:41, 18 December 2007 (UTC))

Sontaran Strategem
http://www.bbc.co.uk/doctorwho/news/cult/news/drwho/2007/12/18/51596.shtml states that the Sontaran story is episodes 5 and 6. I don't know how good the source was for the episodes having production codes 4.4 and 4.5. Does that actually mean episodes 4 and 5? If so, the two conflict, and *I* think the newer one better suits WP:RS, but maybe you'd disagree. 85.92.173.186 (talk) 18:00, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm, that does present a bit of a problem... Could someone check DWM again? Either DWM or the BBC has an error. — Edokter  •  Talk  • 20:14, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Does DWM class anything as production code 4.0 (ie. as in Voyage of the Damned)? 212.32.68.78 (talk) 20:44, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * DWM 390 states "Series 4 Episode 4 is entitled The Sontaran Strategem". Stuart  DD  contributions 20:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

bbc.co.uk/doctorwho is the offical website so we should use that as source, the DWM must be wrong.--Lerdthenerd (talk) 12:13, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Nope, the BBC was wrong! They have corrected the website. — Edokter  •  Talk  • 19:58, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) The page has been changed. It now says episode 4 - see here. Stuart  DD  contributions 20:03, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * That's what I said... :) — Edokter  •  Talk  • 21:07, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Captain Jack Harkness In Series 4
Could someone re-add Jacks apperance in series 4, as it has been removed. It is cited in Jack Harkness in cite 13. Willow177 (talk) 18:28, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Hidden Title in DWM'
In the same article in Doctor Who Magazine that the sontaron and opening story titles wre announced, it said there was a hidden 3rd story title. The only one that looked like it to me was Streets of London. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.131.168.237 (talk) 15:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Correct, but putting a title in for this would be specualation. Stuart  DD  contributions 16:31, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

planet of ood and TUATW numbers
from blocking we can comfirm they are 2.3 and 2.7 81.145.242.74 (talk) 16:51, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * yes, I've added the numbers with a source - brief history of time travel. It has Planet of the Ood as episode 3, and gives the other episode in the block as "episode 51" - therefore series 4 episode 7 - as the same block as planet of the Ood.   Stuart  DD  contributions 16:55, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Series 4 table
The Series 4 table is pretty filled by now (if 'A Brief History of Time' is a reliable source... where do they get their information?). Shall we unhide it? — Edokter  •  Talk  • 17:42, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Just wait until we get more reliable sources. Remember, this isn't a journal where the goal is to be the first to report the news.  We have ample time to get all the facts straightened out--till March or April. DonQuixote (talk) 18:54, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I think Brief History is a reliable source. I'm not sure about the table - but I think we have enough information to unhide it now.   Stuart  DD  contributions 19:41, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


 * OK then, I'll unhide it. It has more info then the Series 2 table of Torchwood anyway. — Edokter  •  Talk  • 19:42, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


 * This is probably being vey pernickity - but don't we have to reference the material in the table as well as referencing it below? Stuart  DD  contributions 19:55, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Preferably yes. Best is to move the refs to the Series 4 table and leave ref aliases in the productin table. — Edokter  •  Talk  • 20:37, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

What's going on?
A lot of references have bee replaced with "Cite error: Invalid tag; name cannot be a simple integer, use a descriptive title" - has something gone wrong with wiki or is it someone vanalising the reference templates? Stuart DD  contributions 22:18, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


 * It's happening all over the place. Please hold off editing until it is solved. — Edokter  •  Talk  • 22:20, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


 * it's been fixed now. Stuart  DD  contributions 22:23, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Yep... One of the devs f***** up. I purged the page to get rid of the errors. — Edokter  •  Talk  • 22:25, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Original venue(s)?
Let me preface this by saying that I am an American and everything I know about first broadcasts is second hand at best, and if I'm belaboring the obvious, I apologize in advance. Did every story listed here have original transmission on BBC One, or did some of those little specials debut elsewhere? If the first is correct, would it not be a good idea to say so in the introductory text? Ted Watson (talk) 22:46, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * They all did unless stated otherwise - the only two to have first broadcasts ausland - "The Five Doctors" and the Paul McGann film - have their broadcasts expressed in their articles quite clearly. - NP Chilla (talk) 18:57, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Should there be a note here as well? Etron81 (talk) 19:01, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure, but I think the dates for origonal broadcast for Five DOctors and TVM are the american ones. Stuart  DD  contributions 20:04, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 5 Docs was first tx in Chicago on 23 Nov 83 and the TVM was first tx in Canada on 12 May 96 (US tx was 14 May) Etron81 (talk) 20:35, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I've checked, and those are the dates down on this page. Stuart  DD  contributions 20:54, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the original poster's question was if we should note the channel of original transmission. In this case I think a statment at teh top saying "All episodes were originally broadcast on BBC One unless other wise stated" and adding a note for 5 Docs and TVM stating their original channels in the US and Canada might be a good idea Etron81 (talk) 21:31, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it's a good idea, but I don't think we really need to do that here. Stuart  DD  contributions 21:49, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Just to nit-pick, but until April 1964 when BBC2 started, part-way through "The Keys of Marinus" in Hartnell's first season, there was no "BBC One", just "BBC tv"! -- Arwel (talk) 12:52, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Etron81, that is indeed what I meant. It had in fact slipped my mind that The Five Doctors and the 1986 film were seen in my country prior to their first BBC showings. Ted Watson (talk) 17:54, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

block 6
episode 6 + 8, can be comfirmed as written by Tom MacRae and James Moran by blocking, but the order can not.81.145.242.74 (talk) 17:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Can you give us the source for this information? — Edokter  •  Talk  • 17:14, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

As i said... blocking 89.241.162.9 (talk) 21:34, 27 December 2007 (UTC) Sorry i meant to say tom macrae and stephen greenhorn 89.241.164.108 (talk) 14:36, 28 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by StuartDD (talk • contribs)

The Cloning Machine
The title of the second part to the Sontaran story. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ClaxsonUnit (talk • contribs) 22:58, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * We must have a verifyable source, either in print or online, before we can put either title in the article. — Edokter  •  Talk  • 23:04, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

there is no source for this, it is obvilosly made up 89.241.171.153 (talk) 12:33, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * These may well be the titles, but we cannot add them without a reliable source (WP:V WP:RS) -as I was trying to tell you last night. If you know of a reliable source, then please add it, and then we can put it in. 14:10, 29 December 2007 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by StuartDD (talk • contribs)

Codes
For Children in need and Attack of the graske... the DW encyclopedia (So comprehensive that it contain's a list of things which AREN'T in it) gives them the codes CiN and AotG respectively. 86.12.126.161 (talk) 13:28, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * That's true. I think those should be the codes we have on this page, but I'll wait and see what other users think.  Stuart  DD  contributions 20:53, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Are those actual production codes or just the identifying codes used in the book? (more akin to abbreviations or shorthand than official production codes) - I only flipped through the book in a shop, so I can't check myself Etron81 (talk) 16:39, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Admitedly, there's nothing to suggest that they are official codes. However, the one for the episodes are the ones we use (1.1 etc).  Stuart  DD  contributions 17:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Protection?
Seems this article is subject to an endless stream of false or unconfirmed titles... Maybe semi-protection is a good idea? Tom walker (talk) 12:04, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


 * You can ask, and see what the admins think. Stuart  DD  contributions 16:10, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Some forums are widely speculating (but what else is new?) If it gets too bad, I'll semi-protect the article for a week. — Edokter  •  Talk  • 18:53, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I've put in a piece of hidden text saying "Do not add titles or broadcast dates without a reliable source" - not that will do much good. Stuart  DD  contributions 18:56, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Adam in Series 4
At the end of the preview for the new series that aired at the end of the Christmas special, it looked as if Martha, Adam, the Doctor, and Donna were all standing together. Just wondering if Adam was confirmed to be in series 4 or if I was mistaken.

And by Adam, I mean Adam from Series 1, he was introducted in the episode "Dalek" and travelled with the doctor for a short time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.78.240.107 (talk) 13:53, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't recall reing Adam in the trailer. We have heard nothing about Adam returning yet, so I would be surprised if he did appear.  Stuart  DD  contributions 20:11, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that's Ryan Sampson. He's confirmed to be in Series Four and it might be the Sontaran story. --86.2.173.190 (talk) 19:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

UNIT return???
I have seen the series 4 trailer and if you pause it at 00:17, there seems to be a group of people in UNIT uniform, could this be verified???--Teenage wikian (talk) 18:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, the latest DWM states that unit are back - mentioned as episode 5. I think this is on the UNIT page. For reference it's DWM 390 page 4 - same page as the Sontaran title.  Stuart  DD  contributions 19:34, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

cheers, i will put it back on --Teenage wikian (talk) 12:33, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Stephen Greenhorn & Tom MacRae's placing
It's a given that they are the writers of Alice Troughton's block as everyone else has their blocks set in stone leaving two places and one block. The Iceman2288 (talk) 22:32, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * True, but who writes which episode? Until that is clear (and sourced), we cannot put them in the episode list. — Edokter  •  Talk  • 00:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * And, of course, poor Tom MacRae's episode has been bumped because Russell T Davies now considers its tone and trappings too similar to another story from this season... Blaine Coughlan (talk) 04:38, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Series 4/production tables
Hmmm, this looks a little messy - I think there needs to be some sort of clean-up. There are two tables for the up coming series - some effort should be made to merge them. Because the info is about a future series, if their is conflicting information between the two tables (and both sets of info come from valid/reliable sources) this should be removed from the merged table and instead be discussed in a paragraph. These are just my thoughts, what do you guys think? Tinkstar1985 11:43, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The production table provides production info not found in the Series 4 table, because it cannot be attributed to a certian episode yet. Once all information becomes available, the production table is eventually going to disappear. — Edokter  •  Talk  • 14:23, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The Unicorn and the Wasp
The title of the Agatha Christie episode. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ClaxsonUnit (talk • contribs) 22:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid this is uncomfirmed so can not be put up 89.241.171.153 (talk) 12:33, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * this does fit, and a picture of a wasp was seen in the series 4 trailer, but as the bbc have not confirmed this, we cannot put this up--Teenage wikian (talk) 18:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't agree with unsourced material, but it might be interesting to note that the Doctor Who: The Encyclopedia notes that if another volume is to be made for 4X onwards (it only goes up until 3.13) then it shall include entries on various words (from Series 4 / Voyage of the Damned). One of these words was unicorn, and seeing as there was a wasp in the "Coming soon..." trailer it seems pretty much the title -- however, it would be better to wait until an official Doctor Who source such as DWM or the BBC Website confirms it, or otherwise it will only encourage people to add more titles, presumabely false ones. Xdt (talk) 20:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

This was the correct title. There was a lot fuss over nothing. Ha! - SaxonUnit (talk) 21:27, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * That's not the point... as long as it was unverifyable, it cannot be put on Wikipedia. — Edokter  •  Talk  • 21:32, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I suppose fan speculation usually turns out to be correct. So did you enjoy last year's The Oncoming Storm? Stuart  DD  contributions 21:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Wasn't it called The Manhole Invasion? -SaxonUnit (talk) 22:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Back on topic, please... see the talkpage guidelines. The Islander 22:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, sorry. Anyway, as Edokter says - wikipedia requires a source for information, so we cannot allow information in that is simply fans guessing.  Stuart  DD  contributions 08:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you can until it is proved otherwise. Ha! - SaxonUnit (talk) 12:50, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Take a good look at WP:CBALL, and then WP:V for good measure. Talk Islander 13:00, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * also, check out WP:RS and the example of last year given above. Stuart  DD  contributions 13:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I have looked at those articles, I refer you to this WP:CRIT-SaxonUnit (talk) 16:51, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I shall certainly take a close look at that in due course - in return, please take a look at WP:POINT. Talk Islander 00:50, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Information goes in ONCE it has a reliable source. Information doesn't go in with out one untill a reliable source states otherwise.  This did not have a source, so could not go in till there was one.  Now there is one, it can go in.  The End.  Stuart  DD  contributions 10:08, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Just to let people know - was the requested new name of  - and he didn't pay to much attention to the rules either.  Stuart  DD  contributions 10:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

He has now been accused of being a sockpuppet of the user --Lerdthenerd (talk) 13:46, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Watchmaker?
keeps adding this title for episode 10. Do we have a reliable source for this title? Stuart DD  contributions 20:49, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Omg! (Oh my gosh) he has a similar username to Porcupine's (Rambutan)old user name! Could he be a sock puppet? Although i doubt it is him--Lerdthenerd (talk) 13:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


 * No. If anything, Porcupine was/is very vigilant toward unsourced information. This is probably an attempt to discredit him. — Edokter  •  Talk  • 13:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Who is this Porcupine people keep talking about? Anyway the title has been removed, unless anyone does wants to answer Stuart Douglas's question then I think the discussion is closed. It is for me.--ShadowpuppetKing (talk) 22:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


 * , he used to be known as Rambutan, of course I was only joking I would never accuse Porcupine of being a sock puppet or a vandal unless he was doing something very wrong. Back to the point just delete this episode 10 title I can't find anything about it on the offical bbc website, might check the latest DWM later on--Lerdthenerd (talk) 14:10, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Well the user tried two references - one from a fan forum that looked to be speculating based on wikipedia edits, and the other from a site that appeared to be suggesting titles. Stuart  DD  contributions  —Preceding comment was added at 14:20, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

fan forums aren't trustworthy i suggest delete it until we get a better source--Lerdthenerd (talk) 20:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I have - and told the user (see his talk page) that sources must be reliable.  Stuart  DD  contributions 16:11, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Apperantly he was blocked for having a similar username to Porcupine's old username, his name is now Shadowpuppetking.--Lerdthenerd (talk) 18:13, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Correct Stuart  DD  contributions 18:51, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm now back; thanks for your faith in me :-) Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 08:43, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Midnight
Has an episode number been confirmed for this title, or was it just the title? Stuart DD  contributions 10:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

No episode number has been given but it was revealed in the Production Notes section of DWM 390 by Russell T. Davies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ifrit rocks olskool (talk • contribs) 16:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

This isn't the title? -SaxonUnit (talk) 16:51, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The title of the episode is "Midnight" and it is/was filmed as part of block 6, but the episode number was NOT confirmed. Stephenb (Talk) 19:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

So if it hasn't been confirmed, it shouldn't be on here. The title needs confirmation first. Therefore this is not the title. -SaxonUnit (talk) 19:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * This is certainly A title in series 4, that is certainly confirmed - if you mean "it shouldn't be in the series table" by "it shouldn't be on here" then yes: I have just removed it from that table; however, it's fine to be in the article Stephenb (Talk) 19:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

If certainty can not be applied to the number then it needs to be removed completely from the article. And what is the problem with my signing? - SaxonUnit (talk) 20:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Why completely removed? It's a citable episode title. Stephenb (Talk) 20:50, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

At this stage, citable episode titles are only titles which have a corresponding episode number. Otherwise it is unlikely this episode will be in the series. Don't worry, if/when the BBC decide to release a number, then the title can go on. - SaxonUnit (talk) 20:57, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * No, it IS completely citable, we just don't know which episode number it is yet. Don't confuse the table with the article. There's no problem with your signing - why are you asking? Stephenb (Talk) 21:00, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

You maybe confused, the title cannot stay until there is absolute proof that it is in the series, otherwise there could be hundreds of titles out there but without an episode number they don't mean anything. - SaxonUnit (talk) 21:04, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * There IS absolute proof! Stephenb (Talk) 21:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

First of all Stephen...calm down. Secondly you are confusing absolute proof with possible proof. - SaxonUnit (talk) 21:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * That makes no sense at all. DWM says that there will be an episode called "Midnight" in the new series. This is taken as a citable reference and so can be used in the article. I think you are trying to be disruptive.  Please stop it.  Stephenb (Talk) 21:20, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I think you are equally to blame for this little arguement, therefore you are being disruptive and are not admitting it. I have not made any changes to the article in question I am just trying to make you see a point and you are clearly not getting it. The title should not be there, not until there is proof. - SaxonUnit (talk) 21:24, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * There is proof, and the citation is in the article. I haven't accused you of changing the article to remove it either.  What is your point, exactly?  You aren't expressing it very clearly!  Stephenb (Talk) 21:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * This is an extremely confusing discussion. Stephen, you're completely correct; it's a perfectly valid piece of information, properly cited. Don't let him get to you! --Brian Olsen (talk) 21:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

What makes you say "him" ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by SaxonUnit (talk • contribs) 21:33, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Quite right! My apologies. The use of the name "Saxon" equated you in my mind with the male Saxon from the show. --Brian Olsen (talk) 21:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not offended, I like the character a lot. - SaxonUnit (talk) 21:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

People, please! This is not a forum, nor a place to biccer or argue, but a place to constructivley discuss the furthering of this article only. Please keep your posts on-topic, and please read the Wikipedia talk page guidelines. Thank you :). Talk Islander 22:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Looking again, the posts weren't really off-topic, but they're certainly angsty, to say the least... Talk Islander 00:52, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I have DWM now, and it states "Russell also divulged the name of the episode that was hidden in his production Notes cloumn in DWM 390 - it's one of the episodes in Block 6, and it's called Midnight" - therefore we have a source for the title, therefore it can go into the article. The End. Stuart  DD  contributions 10:03, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

it is comfirmed. it is a title. either 6 or 8 from DWM but we do not know which episode... 6 or 8? therefore it can go in the article but not in the table. 89.241.162.163 (talk) 19:30, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Colin Salmon
If we replaced our citation for Alex Kingston with http://www.bbc.co.uk/doctorwho/news/cult/news/drwho/2008/01/24/52354.shtml we would also be able to say that Colin Salmon is in the same episode. I'm not going to register just to add this, but I thought I'd make sure it's brought to people's attention. 129.67.53.232 (talk) 07:55, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Do we not already say that? I can't imagine that we don't!--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 08:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Intro
The intro reads: This is a list of Doctor Who television serials and episodes. As of 25 December 2007, 738 individual episodes, including two telemovies, of Doctor Who have been aired, encompassing a total of 192 stories. Additionally, four charity specials and one animated serial have been aired, and two short sequences, "A Fix with Sontarans" and "Attack of the Graske", were produced and involved the interaction of a viewer - the former was a segment of Jim'll Fix It, while the latter was a fully interactive adventure.

Two questions: 1) What is the second telemovie? There's only one listed - I would change it to one but this may have been previously discussed. 2) Why the bolding of the numbers? Again, I would unbold them, but may have been discussed. Finally, shouldn't we link to the A Fix (and Graske) article(s) in the intro, rather than referring to Jim'll Fix It? Stephenb (Talk) 08:43, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The two tele-movies are The Five Doctors and Doctor Who (1996 film). I don't know why the numbers are bolded, and I think Fix and graske are not linked because they are linked in the main list.  Stuart  DD  contributions 08:47, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah, of course, The Five Doctors it is, but I forgot and it was listed as part of a season so didn't notice when I scrolled down - thanks. :) I suggest we unbold the numbers, though, since it looks a little "forceful", as if the article is insisting that it is so! Stephenb (Talk) 08:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'd agree with unbolding the numbers, I don't really see the need. Stuart  DD  contributions 10:02, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Is the 5 Docs a telemovie when it's partly recorded on videotape? By those criteria, shouldn't the Christmas Specials be called telemovies? DavidFarmbrough (talk) 02:09, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * It's a bit of a grey area, to be honest. One one hand, "Voyage" is 72 minutes long, which is slightly edging on the side of telemovie (although it's an episode by numerous statements). But, if we're prescribing Enemy Within as a movie at 85 minutes, I'd go for the Five Doctors being the same as it's just as long and just as contained. And seeing as the uncut version of T5D is 102 minutes... Will (talk) 12:50, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The aricle calls it a "feature-length episode" and it was also later cut into a serial, and is part of season 20. So I tend not to think of it as a "telemovie", unlike the 1996 movie, but more as a special. — Edokter  •  Talk  • 14:40, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

new character to appear in the new series
according to the bbc website a monster character known as River Song will appear in 2 episodes directed by Steven Moffat.--Lerdthenerd (talk) 16:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * That's what the discussion above is about.--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 16:44, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Pompeii reunion
In the episode Rose in series one theres a hand drawing shown of the Ninth Doctor at Pompeii also when the Doctor meets Captain Jack for the first time he mentions he was at Pompeii and known in sereis four theres an episode with the tenth doctor at Pompeii, so could there be a reunion in the not to distant future? User:Kami-Sama
 * A. If there was it'd probably already have been leaked and B. Wikipedia isn't a forum go try Outpost Gallifrey.--130.126.37.47 (talk) 21:18, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The Fires of Pompeii
Confirmed in DWM for this month as the title of episode two - plus some other casting news. Would someone add this in with the right citation: I don't have the mag so I can't source the article. Cheers! Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 14:23, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry Porcupine I don't have the magazine either. On the official Doctor who website it says Doctor actor Kevin Stoney has died!--Lerdthenerd (talk) 14:27, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You're a bit late - "The Fires of Pompeii" and some of the other details have already been added Stephenb (Talk) 14:28, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, and see Kevin Stoney for you, Lerd :) Stephenb (Talk) 14:29, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Pardon me - I didn't think they had been! Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 14:53, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Rowspans
I see my edits to remove those ugly headings for the specials table have been removed, with the reason rowspans are needed; they contain info not suitable for "episode" column and section links which are being linked to (which were destroyed). I disagree with the first part (the additions to the episode column were minimal and perfectly suitable), and I apologise for the second. However, since I still consider them ugly and would prefer them removed, I'm curious: what references them, why (when surely any reference should be to their own article), and is there not a better way to link them if the "why" is a good reason? Stephenb (Talk) 16:54, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * All the 'Series' links the the article's infobox for those episodes link directly to those sections (but that could be changed). But I do feel cramming that much information in the Episodes column in unsightly. I kinda like the way it is organized now. — Edokter  •  Talk  • 17:14, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I would agree with Edokter - having the Totally doctor who note in the episodes box was a bit crowded. I suppose we could change it to the format of the "other stories" section - but then it wouldn't be consitant with the others in the main section.   Stuart  DD  contributions 18:01, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I actually debated with myself whether to keep the Totally reference at all - it isn't actually needed in the table, since the serial's own article refers to when it was originally shown (i.e. within which other programme it was shown is irrelevant to the serial in the list). The Children in Need references aren't strictly needed either.   The "Christmas" additions seemed fine - they were the primary reason I removed the rowspan, since the only reason for them appeared to be to say "Christmas special", and that made the "Specials" table look ugly and inconsistent with the other tables. Stephenb (Talk) 08:42, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Create episode articles?
Since we've now got a fair amount to say about episodes, I think we ought to create the articles for them quite soon - like, within three weeks. For past seasons, they were created as soon as the titles became known, but I think the idea to lock down on them this year was a good one - except we've got plenty to put in them at this stage. Now, as I see it we've got three options: Any views? Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 17:23, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Make articles only for the titles we know (episodes 1,2,3,4,7,10).
 * Make articles for every episode - if we don't know the articles, just use Doctor Who (2007): Episode 5 and so on.
 * Make articles for every story - so the Sontaran two-parter would share under the title of the known part; largely the same as the second option.


 * I don't think we really have enough information to start the articles myself. If we were to do it, I would go for option 1.  Bear in mind that starting the episode articles would attract a huge rush of fancraft and such like.  Stuart  DD  contributions 17:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, then we'd have to revert it. We've got cast-list, confirmed trailer scenes and quotes from the production team - I think it's enough. Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 18:08, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * We don't have any coherent information for any of the episodes to warrant an article yet, just bits and fragments which are already listed here. Just have patience...Even the Torchwood episodes, which are currently airing, don't all have articles yet. — Edokter  •  Talk  • 18:27, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * We've got cast-list, confirmed trailer scenes and quotes from the production team - I think it's enough. Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 18:43, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

summer is just round the corner Porcupine, in fact it is almost spring already! Try to be patient, we don't want fancruft and edit wars.--Lerdthenerd (talk) 22:45, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Nor do we wish to attract undue attention with sub-par articles, given the current climate toward episode articles. Waiting seems the best approach. --Ckatz chat spy  02:18, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Number of aired serials
The first paragraph states there have been 192 aired serials. Going by the numbering on the page, that would be true, except that the numbering includes the unaired (and unfinished) Shada, so there have only been 191 aired serials. Could this either be mentioned near the start, or change the numbering so that it doesn't include Shada? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.12.230.194 (talk) 18:58, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Shada is included in the serials count, as most official sources count it as a serial (BBC website,Brief History). It is explained in an endnote that Shada was unaired, and the intro notes the contraversy about whether to include this.  Stuart  DD  contributions 08:58, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Uncompleted
Changed uncompleted to incompleted. Although I believe uncompleted is an alternative to incompleted, incompleted is the normal native speaker use in English (regardless how much my US spell checker throws a wobbler at it). Candy (talk) 16:49, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * No, it's not. The opposite of the adjective "complete" is "incomplete", but the opposite of "completed" is "uncompleted". Percy Snoodle (talk) 17:03, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Silence in the Library
Just so people know, I thing this title is coming from Outpost Gallifrey(regestration required) - but I doubt that it would count as a reliable source. Stuart DD  contributions 21:21, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You're quite right - Outpost Gallifrey doesn't count as a reliable source, hence we're not putting this title anywhere near the article. :) - NP Chilla (talk) 19:44, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It doesn't any longer, since it's been broken up :) The source StuartDD quotes is the forum www.doctorwhoforum.com, which was originally the OG forum, and as a forum doesn't count as a reliable source (www.doctorwhonews.com still does, though). Even though I totally believe the episode name to be true :) Stephenb (Talk) 19:51, 3 March 2008 (UTC)